Evening gentlemen,I've only read bits and pieces and some summaries of Schoppy's ideas and from what I read I want my suffering buck to be broken by the real thing.If I read everything on this chart, is it sufficient to appreciate the Schoppy's big book?Maybe you could argue, that one can read "World as Will and Representation" without any prerequisites?What do you think about the book itself? Discuss both Kant's and Schopenhauer's works.
>>23978581>Maybe you could argue, that one can read "World as Will and Representation" without any prerequisites?You can, but whether or not you should is a whole different question, to which the answer is no.
Yes it is, he isn't all the doomer you thought he was though. Yes the will is insatiable and unrelenting but there's a way out which he will explain coming towards the end of volume 1.Schopenhauer is a clearer writer than Kant and Kant is more influential. I prefer Schopenhauer view on aesthetics but think it's also bullshit but I still like him
>>23978597Understandable.>>23978682I've lurked enough /lit/ to not wholly assume Schopenhauer to be a doomer.I did like the summary I read on his take on music being the ultimate form of art that represents the Will itself.What would you recommend to have read before reading it? Is picrel in the op enough?
just read his other works. he's rigorous but knowledge of kant is ancillary to what he's trying to tell you: which is that life is evil and mortification of your life instinct is the only path to freedom, besides gawking at art or listening to music.
I think he dropped that plot point
>>23978740With Schopenhauer you can go straight in but if you're feeling daunted you could read his essays and aphorisms. He discusses Kant at the end of volume 1 if I remember correctly and the beginning of volume 2 but he does in such a way that you don't necessarily have to have read Kant but you could just skip those parts. Critique of Pure Reason is really difficult but after you read Schopenhauer and since you've read those books in the chart you might do a fair job of understanding it.Schopenhauer isn't all that difficult so I'd urge you just to delve in
>>23978581Schope himself tells you what you need in the preface to WWR1. Qrd, mastery of Kant, reading Schopes doctoral dissertation, overview of Plato, and optionally read the Upanishads. Kant and the dissertation are obigatory per Schope himself.
>>23978581>prerequisitesVedanta
>>23978581just read picrel then dive in
>>23980322no
>>23978581Ignore this chart. Is this a meme at this point? No Hume, no Locke, no Leibniz's Essais, no Kant's Logic, Prolegomena before the First Critique. Terrible. As for Schopenhauer, he says in the first pages of his WAWAR that you should be familiar with Kant and have read his On the Fourfold Root beforehand. The First Critique is really challenging, I myself have been struggling with it for about two years (not only because it is difficult, but it also demands too much time, it is long and I'm a bit impatient), but we have great secondary literature on Kant, I recommend reading Beiser's chapter on him in his book German Idealism. In any case just go straight into the WAWAR, it may get you interested in reading more of Schopenhauer's books, which the On Fourfold Root would now find its place, and attracted to Kant.
